Hello all,

I tried to post a photo of my idea to save copies, but failed! This really helped me keep track of my progress for the Fool proof method and has been working really well. New games have become a lot easier. Anyways, here's my layout:

Ex. On a full LG section, I drew a chart under each game as follows:

# Date # of Mins. Out of ( )

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

On the last game I expanded my chart:

# Date # of Mins. Out of ( ) Total time (35) Total Out of ( )

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

I then cut scratch paper in half to use as my space for game boards and to place my answers on. If you want to go to great lengths, you can write out answer choices on the scratch sheet, so you can track what you eliminated without writing on the master copy. If someone posted this idea already, oh well! Enjoy

I took a well known in person course for my June LSAT prep and it appears that from my original practice testing scores, I have had a serious regression on all of the categories. Is this common? It just seems like with all that I knew (didn't know) has been trashed and I'm more confused now than when I started. I'm feeling bummed out.

Hi All,

What's the general consensus on PTing up until test date? 2-5 PTs a week? 1 PT per week?

Hello friends.

Tonight at 7pm EST we will congregate over Skype for Blind Review of PT64.

1) Take PT 64 under timed conditions

2) Blind review as you are able

3) Join us at 7pm EST for fun and (logic) games

PM me if you would like to join; include your Skype handle.

Hi!!! I have written my history before, but I'll do a general recap. Studied (mostly with Cambridge) before the December 2014 LSAT. Finally purchased 7Sage with less then three months of studying left. Studied 5-6 hours a day and worked full time. I didn't use that many PTs. I still have (I believe) 50-70s left. Which is good!

I've been through the curriculum 2x now (ultimate package). I wrote my first prep test (for this study cycle) last weekend. I wrote #36. I plan to write #50 tomorrow and prep test 1x a week (Saturdays) right until test day (either October or December).

My question is..... what do you guys do for studying between the prep tests?

What I did last week was....

Saturday - Prep Test #36

Sunday - BR the entire exam. Go through each section. For LR, I identified which questions I got wrong and what question type they were. For LG, I noted which game type gave me the most trouble. For RC, I went back and review where in the passage I could have found the right answer & which types of passages were hardest for me.

During the week....

In the AM I would write 2 times RC passages from both my weak areas (Natural Sciences and Humanities). I would then print off a LG section from the LG Bundle and do that under timed conditions. I made sure to BR the RC passage. I then reviewed both and noted which were harder games/passages so I could go back and redo them.

At lunch I would go through the Cambridge packages and do questions on my weakest LR areas from the prep test (Flaw, MSS, and Parallel Flaw). Before I started prep tests, I reviewed the Cambridge packages for each question type and did #s 1-60. So Now I'm doing #60+. I blind reviewed these, wrote out the corrected reasoning for the questions I got wrong, and went over the answers the next day to reinforce the concepts.

I also read through my notes for about 10 minutes in the morning before work. Just basic notes from 7Sage about the question types, how to solve them, how to negate conditional statements, ect.

I guess I'm wondering if it's "enough". I know I still have a lot of time, and I have now been studying for about a year....... does anyone see anything I could be doing more? I also have taken up reading in my spare time so my mind is more actively engaged. Nothing crazy, just a few leisure books.

Thanks!

Hey guys,

I am struggling with weakening questions, SA questions, and NA questions. I bought JY's starter package, and I am currently on the weakening questions section, and I am missing something, I just do not know what it really is. If it helps I am struggling more on the ones that are slightly hard, and just plain out hard. I know the term "hard" is so subjective, but I guess what I mean is that I am not struggling with the ones that are obvious. Is there something I can do to improve on this section? or if you guys can give me any pointers that would be great. I currently study about 4-5hrs sometimes more, about everyday, and if I am not studying I am reading online on how to approach certain questions, and how to progress in my understanding of the LSAT. What I am trying to project is that I am dedicated, motivated, and I really want a 99th percentile score. I do not like to be average, or just above average. So please, if you guys have any hints, tips, suggestions please let me know, anything that can help is greatly appreciated.

Hi All,

I'm reaching out to see if you all have any tips on how to manage your study time when you're working full-time and in a committed relationship. I'm shacked up with my partner, who also works full-time, and even though he's quite supportive of me taking the LSAT [again], it sure seems hard to just come home every day after my 9-to-5 (often 8-to-7) and completely ignore that I'm in a long-term relationship. Then there are the weekends...

Considering that the LSAT is not a cakewalk, I've realized lately that I'm letting my studying fall by the wayside due to the guilt of ignoring my beau. My situation was very different when I studied for the GRE & applied to grad school, so this is new territory for me.

Thoughts? Am I just making major excuses to avoid studying (due to the fear of sucking on LSAT #2) or are there others out there who have grappled with a similar situation?

(No, I'm not ditching my guy for the LSAT, thank you!)

So the other day I got a crazy difficult game (curse you subzones) and I kinda panicked and sat there for the next 9 minutes. I wasn't sure what to do the whole time or even how to make a game board, which totally killed my score on what would have been a decent test.

I was just wondering what you all do you when get a crazy difficult game (other than panic). I know J.Y. talks about taking a step back and look at the questions but in this case it didn't work for me. Please share any strategies that you have when this happens to you. Thanks!!

Hi does anyone know which one is the best test center in the City of Los Angeles area?

I am considering:

. Loyola Marymount

. Southwestern

. UWLA (San Fernando)

THANKS!

Hey guys, i'm wondering if any of you have any suggestions or tips for keeping yourself engaged and continue with a stable level of momentum throughout the PT. I've noticed recently that i tend to get these mini-burn outs around the end of the section where i start to lag in situations where i should be going a quicker.

So, it's June 8th and I'm ready to take my exam. The school location changed at the last minute and I seem to be in an industrial building. As confused as I am as to why the location was changed, I'm still just trying to stay focused and remind myself of the different strategies I intend to use to attack the LSAT. I walk into the room and it's different than any other classroom I've experienced. There are no windows, the walls seem to be made out of dark metal sheets, and the lighting is very dull. Our seats are arranged in a square like fashion. If I look in front of me I can see someone directly facing me and there are people immediately to my right and my left. I'm worried because this just feels unnatural and depressing. As I look up I see the proctor walking in, and it's the TA from "Writing I" during my freshman year of college. This confuses me. He was also heavy smoker, and I am reminded of this as he proceeds to fill the room with a dull smog of cigarette smoke. Suddenly J.Y.'s voice pops into my head, he says "you can do this, remember all of your training, and the countless hours you watched videos of Jon and I explaining simple answers you got wrong." The proctor administers the test and shortly after I begin.

I open to the first section and it's LR. "This is awesome", I think to myself. "LR and LG are the sections where I've produced the best results and intellectual advancement, just like J.Y. said I would." However, by the time I get to #14 time has been called and I've missed answering half the questions. I'm going crazy. I think to myself "Is this the experimental? Should I cancel my score? Should I continue?" The next section is LG, attempting to shrug off the crappy feeling the previous section bestowed upon me, I move forward. Time is called again, and once again I only finished halfway though. This makes no sense to me. My 180 watch has 15 minutes left on it. Somehow everyone else in the room comfortably finishes except for me? "Is this a joke?" I think to myself. At this point, I go through all of the mathematical possibilities for me to at least hit a 155 (assuming one of the sections was experimental.) I eventually move on to the third section and it's RC. This is my worst section, yet I finished it on time with 5 minutes left to spare. It's weird, he didn't call time early and I finished RC early?? "I must be dreaming" I thought to myself. It's time for our break, but, it's 45 minutes long. "This must be why he cut the first two sections so short, he wanted to add 30 minutes to the break so he could smoke half a pack."

During my break I go home and contemplate suicide. The stress is eating at me horribly, thoughts of 1L at a crappy school are haunting me, and I feel like all I've studied/worked for was for nothing. I started to cry and feel ashamed to look into my family's eyes, my girlfriend's eyes, and all I could think of was being an outlier of the 7Sage curriculum. 7Sage has produced so many high scoring awesome individuals, but I couldn't live up to that standard. I get ready to go back to my testing location and try to at least finish the exam with some dignity.

As soon as I get there the test had already started. I WAS 15 MINUTES LATE! well, I really wasn't, but the proctor decided to cut the break by 15 minutes. I rush to my exam and it's another RC section. I only answered 10 question before time was called, and it was horrible. I felt tense, I felt everyone's glaring eyes staring into my soul through the smog, and I started to laugh hysterically. I looked at my test booklet, and it was infinite. I was stuck in a room with an LSAT test that never ended. As I was laughing J.Y. appears and clears the smog away. I then looked at my test booklet and it was brand new with 5 sections. As I look up I noticed I was in a new testing room. J.Y. is the proctor and everyone's usernames I could remember from 7Sage hovered over blank faces. I started my exam and as soon as I turned to the first page I woke up.

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-39-section-2-question-12/

hello, I just want to make sure weather my reasoning was right.

It was infer question type.

summing the stimulus, it says A-> wrong.

but in the right answer choice, it says A is not right.

clearly, in my opinion, not right is not equal to wrong.

It is okay to say not right for wrong in 'infer' question type? or it is neglected because other four choices are utterly wrong.

I want to type the whole stimulus, but I'm not sure it is okay to put up an actual question here..

please help me,, many thanks!!

I've been cursed by your wizardry, @"J.Y. Ping".

Walking around with my attorney friend yesterday discussing a trial (I'm also her legal assistant), the curse began to take effect:

Words like "unless," "until," "the only," "without": they triggered a response in my mind that went like this: "Negate, make sufficient ... Unless he provides X, we have grounds for Y." This was the case for all logical indicators uttered in conversation. This has continued to be the case today. This is both uncanny (lit. "unheimlich") and amazing.

Anyone else have experience with this ... I'm alarmed to see what was previously such a foreign concept to me suddenly appear as being ingrained as automatic behavior. This is both thrilling and disturbing (but in a way I really like).

So I have just begun studying with this program the last couple weeks. Originally, my goal was to take the LSAT this upcoming October, but after the first few lessons, I am worried that I will not have enough time for it. I thought about pushing the date I take it back, but I have also read that the sooner you apply to law schools, the better chance you have getting in and receiving financial aid. So I am torn between giving myself more time for prep and taking it sooner so I can get my application in sooner.

Any advice?

Hi all, there are a lot of lessons on 7sage and I was hoping if you guys could share which ones you found the most helpful.

So we have a week left to get ready and I was planning on using my last week to complete PT 50-60(thats as far as i will have gotten). Are the newer PT's significantly different that i should be focusing on them instead of just completing up to PT 60 for the exam?

I am consistently getting perfect on the LG's and my LRs' are between -16 to -5 (least to most recent) and RC are between -8 to -4

So, is any section on the newer PTs harder that i should be prepping with those instead?

Is it normal that one hits a point in their studying where it all just "clicks" and your score just rapidly increases? Or is it more likely to slowly progress?

I'm normally making in the low 160s when I prep-test, which isn't too bad - it is good enough to get in to the school I want to go to, but I generally miss half of my questions solely in reading comprehension. I normally miss 10-12 in RC, and then 3-4 in each of the other sections. I'm just not retaining any of what I have read. I can do it no big deal when I BR because I don't have the pressure of time...but when I do have the timer I seem to be always picking the most common wrong answers. Does any body have any tips for what I could do to improve retention/understanding of what to pay specific attention to while reading?? I take the LSAT in June! Thanks!!

Hey guys! I made a study guide on Quizlet with LR question types (like Mike suggested) that I wanted to share/ get feedback on (particularly with respect to #18, types of arguments). It's purposefully not as dense as it could be because it's what I intend to use to prime myself before taking a PT and the real LSAT.

1. Agree

Step 1: Read the stimulus

Step 2: Underline conclusion

Step 3: Ask yourself the following questions

-- (1) Do they arrive at the same conclusion? POA (point of agreement): conclusion

-- (2) Do they use the same premise to arrive at different conclusions? POA: premise

-- (3) Do they use different premises to arrive at different conclusions? POA: subject matter

2. Disagree

Step 1: Read the stimulus

Step 2: Underline conclusion

Step 3: Ask yourself the following questions

-- (1) Do they use the same premise to arrive at different conclusions? POD (point of disagreement): conclusion

-- (3) Do they use different premises to arrive at different conclusions? POD: premise

Note: It is really important to understand what they are talking about. Think back to the ESP disagree example -- you would have gotten this question right if you thought about the fact that what they're talking about is the extent of public opinion on the existence of ESP.

3. Explain

4. Flaw

Step 1: Underline conclusion

Step 2: Find premise

Step 3a: Use typically fallacious terminology to properly identify the flaw (e.g., correlation =/= causation)

Step 3b: If you cannot draw upon existing knowledge of term bank, write down what exactly the argument doesn't take into account

Step 4: POE (process of elimination)

- Wrong flaw (not in the argument)

- Mixing of flaw (gets the right elements of the flaw but in the wrong order)

- FIC (factually incorrect)

- OS (out of scope) (specifically when they talk about information that isn't present in the argument -- this can feel odd when you're in the test because you won't know how to classify this answer choice since it almost seems like no parts relate to the main argument)

Note: It's really important when you're eliminating answer choices to really understand what the answer choice is doing. There will be some instances where you get two answer choices that relate to S/N confusion but will reverse the wrong one (so it will say confuses the sufficient for the necessary). You need to be extremely careful and if necessary, come back to these to give you the time you need.

5. Logically Completes the Argument

Step 1: Read the stimulus

Step 2: Underline conclusion (if you can)

Step 3: Identify what part is missing (typically the conclusion but could be a supporting premise)

Step 4: POE (process of elimination)

- Eliminate AC's that aren't the correct AP (argument part)

- Eliminate AC's that aren't MBT

6. MBT

Step 1: Underline conclusion

Step 2: Link up premises

Step 3: Chain them up if you can

** pay very close attention to a solitary conditional statement

Step 4: Go to answer choices and POE

- Mixes up terms (very common)

- FIC (factually incorrect)

- MS (modal shift)

- DS (degree shift)

- OS (out of scope)

8. MSS

Step 1: Read the stimulus

Step 2: Link up concepts (if you can)

Step 3: Go to answer choices and POE

- Mixes up terms (very common)

- FIC

- MS

- DS

- OS

Note: Be extremely wary of very strong answer choices but do not eliminate because they are strong.

9. Necessary Assumption

Step 1: Underline conclusion

Step 2: Identify premises

Step 3: Diagram into P -- C format

Step 4a: What's missing? Term shift? Do you need to eliminate alt. causes?

Step 4b: If nothing's missing, then the necessary assumption will need to actually link P -- C (ex: P actually has an effect on C)

Step 5: Find the correct answer choice and use POE (the wrong answer choices will typically focus on the wrong part of the argument so knowing what terms or links you need to focus on is crucial to not getting messed up)

Step 6: Confirm the correct answer choice using the negation test

10. Parallel

When reading the stimulus, look out for and write down:

1) Underline conclusion

2) Argument structure in stock variables (A --> B, B --> C // C)

3) Pay attention to the degree

4) Pay attention to the modality

When going through the answer choices, the fastest way to eliminate them is to eliminate based off of degree, modality, and then mapping out the argument structure. Even if you don't really understand the argument, look out for these three things: argument structure, degree, and modality.

11. Parallel Flaw

When reading the stimulus, write down the flaw you are looking for (luckily, these can be easily categorized or identified).

When going through the answer choices, find the answer choice that matches. If stuck between 2, compare the argument structure, degree, and modality.

12. Principle

Step 1: Underline the conclusion

Step 2: Identify the main premise

Step 3: Put into argument core (P -- C)

Step 4: POE

Note: Principle questions can be like Sufficient Assumption questions where the AC tightly fills the gap between P and C OR they can be like Strengthen questions where the AC helps fill the gap between the 2 but doesn't necessary fill it.

13. Reading Comprehension

-- As you're reading, answer the following questions:

1) What is the MP?

2) What is the AA?

3) What is the structure?

4) What are the main examples?

-- When you're answering questions, pre-phrase the correct AC before looking at the correct answers. Find the AC that matches the correct answer. It is even more important in RC to read every single answer choice carefully because 1 word can make or break an AC.

-- Typically, answer choices will be wrong because:

- MS

- DS

- OS

- FIC

-- If you don't know how to answer a question or are really struggling with a passage, eliminate as best you can (do not OVER eliminate) and then move on. Do not get sucked into spending 3+ minutes on answering a question right.

14. Resolve

(1) Are the 2 groups treated the same?

-- Correct AC: needs to show how the 2 groups are different

(2) Are the 2 groups treated differently?

-- Correct AC: needs to show how the 2 groups are similar

15. Role / Argument Part

Step 1: Read the stimulus

Step 2: Identify the argument part

Background -- sets up context for the stimulus

Premise -- supports something (note, even if the premise supports the IC, it is still the premise)

Intermediate Conclusion -- both is supported by something and supports something

Conclusion -- is supported by the argument and supports nothing else in the argument

16. Strengthen

Step 1: Identify conclusion

Step 2: Diagram argument core

Step 3a: If causal, strengthen the argument by showing SC --> SE (same cause, same effect), NC --> NE (no cause, no effect), lack of reverse causation, and lack of alt. causes)

Step 3b: If not casual, strengthen the argument by linking terms

Step 3c: If the argument draws on evidence from 2 groups, then show that the 2 groups are similar (if the argument treats them as such) or as different (again, if the argument treats them as such)

Step 4: POE

- FIC

- OS

- MS

- DS

- Weakens

- P+ (premise booster) (this can be tricky)

Note: Sometimes, all it takes is one word to destroy what might seem like a correct answer choice. Pay very close attention to the answer choices.

I see there are just over 1000 questions with the Cambridge LR bundle.

Just wondering if they are more comprehensive than all of the LR practice sets with the 7Sage Ultimate package?

Trying to decide if I should buy the Cambridge bundle or just print off all of the LR practice sets on here to drill with.

This might be a strange question; hoping I can explain myself properly...!

I plan to start PTing soon for the October test. I've been through the core curriculum twice, the Trainer twice and the LG bundle once.

For those of you PTing, is it normal to start the process without feeling you have a totally firm grasp of each concept? Something inside me is misleading me into thinking that I need to be 100% sharp-skilled and "test ready" for I dive into the PTs. When deep down I know that the extra work that the PTs spur on, in context, is what will actually make me test ready.

So, in conclusion, is it normal to enter PTing somewhat foggy? I don't want to keep feeling I must learn more first, and enter dangerous ground of delaying PTing too much.

I just hit PT 65 and 66 and something definitely feels different with LR. Different enough that I have seen a few point dip in my score.

The questions aren't much more difficult, but some of the earlier questions in the sections are definitely trickier than they were in the 50s and early 60s. (For example, PT66, S4, Q5 -Q7: what is with these questions? They're not super difficult, but I wasn't breezing through the first half of the section like I have been the last preptests).

Has anyone else noticed this shift as well? LG and RC seem comparable to the other PT, but I've been getting more LR questions wrong than usual.

There is no test center anymore anywhere in San Jose or in the whole SF South Bay region for ANY test administration!!

There used to a few in San Jose. Now none exists in the region for the upcoming June/Oct/Dec/Feb tests. Santa Clara U is also closed.

South Bay takers, where are you testing?

[mod edit: please dont post titles/content in all caps.]

Do you guys have any advice on deciding when to map out all possible game boards after reading the conditions (for sequencing games) and when to tackle the questions and make inferences as they come? I've found that my intuition is awful with this - I never know when to map everything out or when I should just go straight to the questions. I usually start by trying to make some inferences and set up alternative game boards but sometimes it works and sometimes I get stuck. Then when I watch JY's explanation videos, he'll sometimes have set up like, 6 different boards for a game I didn't bother doing at all in the beginning, or it'll be the opposite where I've set up a ton of different boards in the beginning (and it's a time killer) and he just went straight to the questions. Any tips would be appreciated!

Not sure who would have to be the architect for this, and I'm sure it wouldn't be done before I take the LSAT in October, but I was thinking for future 7Sagers it would be nice to make the study schedule more interactive. As an example, I have had the Ultimate package for a while now and I recently finished the curriculum and have taken a couple of PTs, but I also just bought the most recent PTs when they were on sale before the LSAC PDF ban took effect. I also bought the PS bundle to complete the total 7Sage package. Because of this, and also due to the removal of the LG Bundle, my schedule has gone all over the place. Previously I was supposed to have started PTs next week, but now I'm supposed to have already finished 6 PTs.

I think it would be great if we could pick what we wanted to be on our schedule and then generate based on those chosen tasks whether it was specific lessons or whole subsections of the curriculum. For example, I don't need the PS Bundle to appear the week before the LSAT since I won't be working on it then, but I would like the LG Bundle to be factored back in. I think the best possible way to do this would be to somehow integrate the syllabus with the study schedule so that I could star any items that I wanted on my schedule and then set a start date and test date. This way I could star specific lessons to review throughout my PT schedule in order to make sure I was keeping all my skills up without having to go back and search out those lessons.

Anyways, I'm sure this is asking a lot of the creators of this site, but I love this site and have gotten so much out of it that I just wanted to make this suggestion to see if there was any popular support for such an improvement and hopefully we could help out future users based on our own user experiences.